Planning Cities

In advance of the Harcourt rally for a vision for Nanaimo, Wed. Oct. 5 @ the convention centre. I wrote out some thoughts on the process of planning. In Nanaimo there are three types of planners:

The schemers – a small number of citizens develop a list of wishes based on their particular small set of interests, add a architect’s rendering or two to dress it up, and call it a vision for Nanaimo to sell it to the rest of the city. The idea is to get everyone else to pay for whatever it is that they want. They’re like children with a christmas wish list, and everybody else is supposed to play Santa Claus.

The Not-in-front-of-my-view-and-not-in-my-backyarders – this type doesn’t get active until they perceive a threat to their little corner of the city. Typically, they are really only interested in being left alone. If there is a problem, let some other neighbourhood deal with it. For the most part, if there is a plan, they’re against it until its proven that the plan undoable. They’ll support only the undoable plans or the undoable parts of plans.

The city hall planners – like rats in a maze, they’ll go down any random corridor hoping to get to the cheese. This is planning not to plan, and trying to make it look like they know what they are doing. In this maze, incompetence is promoted, so that from a huge list of recommendations, a few recommendations are randomly chosen to become guidelines, and guidelines become regulations, and regulation rules to the point of absurdity.

Sadly, none of these types of planning work. Largely, because these are three unhealthy, incomplete and incompetent pieces to a much larger puzzle.

In a healthy society, the schemers would be able to identify trends, issues and ideas that may be worth preparing for, considering, and acting upon. Unfortunately, the amount of material that can be generated by this group can be overwhelming. Without an ability to self-edit or easily analyze the merits of their individual ideas we can get a massive glop of stuff to deal with. To accommodate this group, we end up with the job jar approach. Someone of influence would randomly pick a project out of the jar, quickly assess its popularity on a political level, and go with that – come hell or high water.

The NIMBY’s would, in the best of times, require from us sober second thought. They tend to identify issues, concerns and alternatives that, perhaps, should be considered. Since we are randomly committing ourselves to ideas from a jar, long before we give these ideas any thought at all, the NIMBY’s role is now entirely superficial and denigrated.

The city hall planner would in the best circumstance be able to identify the viability of an idea, and direct us to alternatives that might have a more satisfactory outcome. Since they haven’t done much case study work, and their understanding of the nature of cities is limited, they confine themselves to making and managing the regulations and hope that the result will be good enough.

The net result is a city based on random chooses, emotional reactions and uninformed decisions. The community doesn’t benefit because everyone is pursing a very narrow set of interests, and arguing from a very limited point of view, without consideration for the fact that as the whole community improves so do their individual lives.

The only planning that works, is the planning that argues for improved efficiency. I know this sounds repetitive, but these are the only arguments that can inform decisions based on rational, enlightened self-interest.

Increased efficiency benefits the most people by making the whole city easier to live in. Instead of thinking of efficiency as a by-product of whatever idea is out there, analyze the idea with the notion that efficiency is the primary goal. Health and safety issues aside; if a project of any sort, won’t make the city more efficient, then it won’t have a lasting impact, it won’t be sustainable and it won’t be worth doing. Throw that idea out and move on to the next one.

If we can analyze ideas using this very simple guide we can easily separate the wheat from the chaff, so that we can focus on the beneficial and the doable. The result is a city that’s sustainable, lively, interesting, dynamic and, also, worth living in.

Share this:

Related

19 Comments

Wyatt Earp October 3, 2011

So, which would yoy be? I suspect I would fall into the first group. Not because I want to but only because I don’t like the others much. I don’t like complainers but appreciate constructive critisism. Many other cities in this province have faced similar problems but have found ways to solve them where we seem set a direction (like it or lump it) only to change direction weeks later. This wastes vast amounts of time, money and energy which would be better utilized elsewhere.

So having a “vision” for a change is a negative as they are all jaded. The problem with Nanaimo is there is NO VISION to work to. Too bad you have remain with the club that sees no value is working to a vision. So lets just keep making decisions based on no vision, no plan and no structure. I don’t think so!!

1. Mike Harcourt Mr. Smiling same-old-same-old: we’ve heard it all before Mike.
2. 12.50 Canadian petro-dollars! Why do we have to pay to talk to our own town?
3. Nanaimo Chamber of Commerce. Well, we know were it is coming from (sprawl, waterfront high rises, wrecking ball annex, etc) and if you give support more fool you.
4. Nanaimo Old City Association: where’s Nanaimo the New City? Heritage baloney, tourist baloney!
5. Kim Smythe the local spin doctor
6. <B.Port Theatre http://www.porttheatre.com/index.php/events/oct-2011/vision-rally/ show your genuine vision by staying away.

What this city needs is genuine local development supported by genuine local finance: Mike and C of C wont tell you that!

Will Nanaimo ever figure out what it wants to be??? West Coast industrial town dependent on natural resources???? Doubt it. We couldn’t even agree to put a power generation plant at Duke Point (the INDUSTRIAL Park).
A tourist destination???? OK after the Bastion and a walk in the park, then what?? Bungy jump??
Retail hub for the island?? Duncan and Comox had the same idea it seems.

Still like my idea of developing a geriatric theme park……..

Looking forward to all the ‘out of the box’ thinking that the rally should bring to our fumbling leaders. Suspect it will have to be financed with tax dollars tho’

Why are we not demanding from the city what the vision and strategic plan is? Jim ,my feeling is no Nanaimo will not figure this out unless someone can finally standup to the powers that be and get a plan out of these people. Seems like a hit and miss approach to what we do here. Adding more regualtions and bylaws does nothing for this economy other that to help justify another city workers job.

The woodworkers were protesting the export of raw logs depriving them of their jobs. Where I not a geriatric, to slow to keep up, I would have joined them.

I have been watching those jobs sailing away for more than a year: yesterday a huge black hull left loaded to the gunnels, today an orange hull is loading the same.

I didn’t see (talk the talk but no walk the walk) Daniel marching. I did not see Jim! I didn’t see any of the regular gossips.

But then anyone who still likes” . . . my idea of developing a geriatric theme park……..” is too much of a stupid, bloody fool for me to take seriously: huh enjoy the gab-fest come tomorrow evening.

“. . . my feeling is no Nanaimo will not figure this out unless someone can finally standup to the powers that be . . .” Cheers Lynn, let me buy you a cup of coffee at Mon petit Chou. Their croissants are the best . . .

Roger, you miss my sarcasm……… nanaimo’s best hope for the future is to attract old farts with bags of money they made someplace else to come here and pay the young people to serve them coffee at Mon Petit……..

I have never heard anyone layout a sound plan for Nanaimo’s economic future, just a whole lot of opinion and more blah……blah…..blah….

Judging from the blabbering here, if we were to form the new council nothing much would change……………..

All,
Heated topic for sure. Big problem here as I read this mess of opinion is there is not constructive crit. Just, I’m right, you’re an idiot, now shut up sort of thing. Very childish at best.

There remains so much potenial for Nanaimo. Yes there should be more multistorey buildings to get more densification and better transit but the location has got to make sense. We spend vast amounts of money growing out when we could spend fractions of that going up.

If we are actually looking at the future and we need to pick a direction we’ve got to get our collective head out of our ass. Simply put fewer people will want to purchase (or can afford) the single family home with the white picket fence yet everyone wants their own space. Just look at the latest statistics that show more people are leaving places like Vancouver than coming in since it is simnply too expensive. Areas around the south end of the island face the same fate. The big problem is there aren’t any high paying jobs left (union or otherwise) and unless industry can flourish there won’t be any tax base to fund any public anything, peiod. Bring on the coal mine in Royston, the IPP in Port Alice and the wind farm at Cape Scott but don’t stop there. Bring back or reinvent the wood reman sites and generate more jobs that generate energy so their is competition for Hydro to keep rates in check and make this island self sufficient.

“Just, I’m right, you’re an idiot, now shut up sort of thing. Very childish at best. ”

Really: oh how you so presume?

No Wyatt you are not right. And we are not idiots just because we do not fall in line with your pusillanimous musings.

Show respect for yourself and your opinions by revealing the true author of your words: let go that childish pseudonym.

You, who dare not speak your name, and high-and-mighty Bolin, have the impertinence to dispense censure: sirs, you do not have that prerogative!

Tomorrow evening, two important Vision meetings are in conflict. Is that good planning? Is that a harbinger of screw-ups to come? With such loose and lazy forethought is either one worth the bother?

Does that not show the uselessness of engaging debate with those who have shown time and time again to be incapable of visioning? Furthermore experience tells us these people are beholden to their strings being manipulated behind the scene, and you know that!

You can have all the vision you want but the real decisions are not made in Nanaimo.
The link provided is representative of many BC communities.
The link between them is that many of these communities have Councils who support this irrational “free market” thinking ; until the boot drops that is & then the tax payer pays the price.
What is left after the real jobs have gone is the “developer” .
Development in itself is not so bad but development & build it & they will come is not a sustainable industry nor should it be ( look around you )